Abstract versus concrete in games (or, why rules-light systems suck)

[Silverleaf]

There is your problem. D&D and C&C reward high strength over all other stats, with the possible exception of con. You cannot get away from that without playing a different game entirely. The dex figther will lose because he is supposed to lose to the high str. fighter. That is how D&D (and C&C) are supposed to work. Conan kills D'Artagnan. Every time. Without exception.

The problem with this scenario is that Conan is a superhuman with very high STR, DEX and CON, and he's high level to boot. Whereas D'Artagnan is only a highly-skilled (mid/high level) swordfighter, with decent DEX. So yes Conan wins, but that's becasue they're not in the same league...
(well at least that's how I'd model them in old-school D&D)

 

[der_kluge]

Also, I find that--when playing "rules heavy" systems--only 1/3 to 1/2 the people at the table really seem to bother knowing the rules in any detail. The rest don't seem to enjoy the game as much as when playing "rules light" systems.

I have noticed this. Especially with my previous group. Several of them had come back to gaming from 1e, and a few were new to it altogether, so all the 3e rules really confused them.

 

[gizmo33]

So you're suggesting that regardless of your characters ability scores you can describe him/her how your want to as long as it mechanically works out. So I can play a 6 int fighter and still be smart and intellectual. Essentially your characters ability scores have no effect on how you RP or describe him/her. If thats the case then you might as well not have any rules.

1. Yes, why not describe your character the way you want? You're rolling for stats, not personality (like you do in Pendragon, for instance, which is an interesting system)
2. You can describe your 6 int fighter as "smart and intellectual" if you want. Of course it would be hard to reconcile that with poor int-related skills.
3. Well, it's not that they have NO effect - you're making this an all or nothing thing. There is some gray area. In 3E, it's not clear that Strength means one type of strength - powerlifter vs. long-jumper. I doubt that skill in power-lifting translates to skill in long-jump but that's what the Strength ability score seems to imply. Wouldn't someone "fast" (as Kluge would describe his character) be good at a long-jump?
4. Yes, you might as well have rules. I don't understand how you got from there to here. I'm not aware of any rules for personality and general concept issues like this.

The point: since Strength in DnD affects a wide variety of unrelated skills, why not choose the interpretation that fits your character? Unless you're made out of paper, being fast probably means that you're pretty strong relative to your size.

 

[Silverleaf]

This has never been true in any incarnation of D&D. Why would you expect it to be true in C&C? In both games, in all incarnations, strong fighters beat the snot out of fast fighters, every single time, without exception. "Weapon Finesse" is there to make the imbalance a little less egregious, but the weighting is still heavily in favour of strength. If anything, C&C has a slightly closer balance because the ability modifiers are lower.

I don't know about C&C, but in old-school D&D it breaks down like this:
18 STR: +3 melee to-hit & dmg
18 DEX: +3 missile to-hit, -3 AC bonus, +2 initiative bonus
(note that inititative is rolled on 1d6, so +2 bonus is considerable)

If they (the strong guy and dextrous guy) just stand there and beat on each other, the odds are probably in favor of the strong guy, because his to-hit bonus cancels out his opponents AC bonus, but the damage bonus still applies. At low levels though the initiative bonus may be more significant, so it depends...
But if the dextrous guy uses his brains and softens his opponent up with some arrows or thrown daggers before closing in, then his chances increase considerably, and this may even give him the upper hand.

A swachbuckler class isn't a bad idea though, and if you look around you'll find a few for every edition. It's a very significant archetype.

 

[gizmo33]

The problem with this scenario is that Conan is a superhuman with very high STR, DEX and CON, and he's high level to boot. Whereas D'Artagnan is only a highly-skilled (mid/high level) swordfighter, with decent DEX. So yes Conan wins, but that's becasue they're not in the same league...
(well at least that's how I'd model them in old-school D&D)

The problem with translating literary characters to DnD is that you have to distinguish between artistic license in fiction with game mechanics. Does Conan avoid the falling boulder because he has a high dex, or because he has a good Reflex save, or because damage done is a fraction of his hitpoints? Certainly the author (knowing nothing of DnD) thought nothing more than to explain that the boulder doesn't kill Conan, there are probably a number of game-mechanics explanations. Some of the posts in this thread seem very dogmatic about "such and such is dexterity" vs. "such and such is high level" and unless you guys got your PhDs in DnD game translations of fiction I'm not sure why these things are treated that way.

IMO, the definitions of Dex and Str are suitably vague enough that Kluge could avoid having to introduce new rules in order to define his character. He's insisting on a certain set of game statistics as being the ONLY way to model his character concept, and then demanding (in a way) that the DM change rules in order to make his "concept" "playable". I'm not sure what "concept" means when it's so heavily laden with game stats, and I'm not sure what "playable" means since none of his choices seem to prevent him from rolling dice! What he means by "playable" is that he wants to be able to kill other fighters of his level. Can Conan kill other fighters of his level? Isn't that a strange question.

 

[scadgrad]

...
Sometime I want to take a poll and check a theory I have. I think most of those who prefer C&C are "wizard players" by preference, and that most of those who don't are not. Spellcasters are the undisputed kings of any game if you take out feats and such. And they retain tactical options (spell lists) that the other classes do not. This makes them more interesting (in other words "fun") to play to everyone but those for whom Conan, Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser or similar characters are the archetypes that attracted them to RPGs.

For the record, I've never been particularly fond of wizard PCs and my score on that silly test is ENTP (although I'm only slightly E).

God I hope not! My campaign setting is TOTALLY inspired by REH and Lieber and for that reason a brawny Cimmerian with a broad sword should always have an advantage over wimpy Wizard types. The setting is geared toward making Fighters and Barbarians the default bad-boys.

IMO, Wizards have a much tougher time of it in C&C, especially at low levels. So, no I'd say the fighting classes are just as effective as the Wiz & the Illusionist. That's why those two have a bit steeper XP chart and no HPs to amount to anything.

 

[JohnSnow]

God I hope not! My campaign setting is TOTALLY inspired by REH and Lieber and for that reason a brawny Cimmerian with a broad sword should always have an advantage over wimpy Wizard types. The setting is geared toward making Fighters and Barbarians the default bad-boys.

IMO, Wizards have a much tougher time of it in C&C, especially at low levels. So, no I'd say the fighting classes are just as effective as the Wiz & the Illusionist. That's why those two have a bit steeper XP chart and no HPs to amount to anything.

Yes scadgrad, but if I understand correctly, you've added feats back into C&C, restoring the 3e-derived power boosts to the fighting classes. Akrasia, by contrast, added 3e-style critical hits back in but not feats, so while a rapier is different from a longsword, two-weapon fighting isn't really an option. My point was that in C&C's "default" mode, without the 3e feat and combat system, the tactical options open to non-spellcasters in combat are greatly diminished.

By the way, unless I'm misremembering RPG Design 101, any class that has a steeper xp chart has one specifically as a counterbalance to prevent it from overpowering the other classes. Which means the classes are not inherently balanced as written. And while I understand those attracted to C&C for its more open rule system, I think the claim that C&C is "balanced" and therefore more "plug-and-play" than 3e is belied by this simple fact.

So while I think some simplification of the D&D 3e system can be done (and maybe should be), I think C&C (as written) goes too far. And to my mind, what it sacrifices for simplicity are the tactical options available to players. For those who don't have any use for a tactical game, this is obviously an improvement, but for those of us who prefer chess to checkers, it's a loss worth mourning.

As a sometime DM myself, I certainly understand the attraction of a game with less prep time, which is why I agreed to a C&C game for our group despite my reservations with aspects of the C&C system. I'm also eagerly awaiting the release of Mike Mearls' Iron Lore...err...I mean Iron Heroes, which hints at solving some of these issues. Of particular interest to this discussion is Mearls' claim that once you become familiar with the system, you can "stat up" a high-level NPC in about 15 minutes. IH certainly has tactical options available to players and without magic, "stacking" seems to become much easier to adjudicate (e.g. Defense is 2 types - active and passive). If combat is also fun and exciting, Mearls may have hit the "sweet spot." Obviously, only time will tell.

Just as an aside, your game world sounds quite similar to both Akrasia's and to one I've been working up for a while now. Funny. For the record, I've decided to table rules-related development on that setting and wait for Iron Heroes, since I think it'll be such a natural fit for that type of setting.

Just my opinions.

 

[National Acrobat]

I've spent a couple of days at work creating my character. I have a 4 page character sheet. 3 pages for history/background and 1 page for equipment (including descriptions and location for each item). Almost none of it is "mechanics". So, there aren't many "numbers" associated with this character, but I could never have created her in 5 minutes.

These characters that your players created in 5 minutes, are they complex? Do they have a history? If you do a "fashion show" where everyone describes what they look like, what do you get - bland descriptions describing armor and weapons, or intricate decriptions describing tattoos, hair color, eye color, the clothes, or other unique features?

I get a 1st level character, usually who's grown up and just now starting out in the world. I generally get a very good and very descriptive personality, image and background. None of it is bland, but there is a lot of room for growth, because at first level, they don't have a lot to tell. My campaigns generally revolve around the players, and their growing up. The last 3 campaigns have started with the characters having just turned 18 and an event in their locality has turned them into adventurers.

There's nothing contrived or bland about them, but they are also a blank slate, ready to evolve.

Our character sheets are usually a small legal pad, on one side.

 

[National Acrobat]

Sometime I want to take a poll and check a theory I have. I think most of those who prefer C&C are "wizard players" by preference, and that most of those who don't are not. Spellcasters are the undisputed kings of any game if you take out feats and such. And they retain tactical options (spell lists) that the other classes do not. This makes them more interesting (in other words "fun") to play to everyone but those for whom Conan, Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser or similar characters are the archetypes that attracted them to RPGs.

For the record, I've never been particularly fond of wizard PCs and my score on that silly test is ENTP (although I'm only slightly E).

I run C&C and of 8 current characters, I have 1 wizard, 1 cleric, 1 paladin, 1 thief, 1 ranger and 3 fighters.

I also play in a C&C group, and we have 6 characters. Only 1 is a wizard, and there is one Cleric. The rest are all fighter types.

 

[scadgrad]

Yes scadgrad, but if I understand correctly, you've added feats back into C&C, restoring the 3e-derived power boosts to the fighting classes. Akrasia, by contrast, added 3e-style critical hits back in but not feats, so while a rapier is different from a longsword, two-weapon fighting isn't really an option. My point was that in C&C's "default" mode, without the 3e feat and combat system, the tactical options open to non-spellcasters in combat are greatly diminished.

Good post there John Snow. By the way, judging from your nom' de net, I'd assume you're as anxious as I am for this Summer's new GRRM novel. I certainly hope he doesn't drop the ball and move the relase to fall. Meredith (my long-suffering wife) and I are both eagerly awaiting its release.

Yeah, IMC I wanted to make sure that fighter-types kept the upper hand. So there's a lot that gets in the way of the traditional spell slinger, magic being fairly restrictive, expensive, regulated, etc.

More to the point though, I was talking about Vanilla C&C where the spellcasters can't move and are pretty much fubarred once someone gets in there face. Sure Sleep is still a very, very powerful spell, but from what I've seen Fighters and Barbarians are pretty darn dangerous from the get-go.

Just to add to your point here...

"By the way, unless I'm misremembering RPG Design 101, any class that has a steeper xp chart has one specifically as a counterbalance to prevent it from overpowering the other classes. Which means the classes are not inherently balanced as written."

Yes, but that steeper XP chart IS part of the written class isn't it? At least that's how I see it.

As for your comments about the tactical parts of the combat, there's still a good bit of tactics available. I think that if you're more inclined to the d20/herosystem blow-by-blow method of combat, you're just never going to enjoy the more abstract C&C/CoC/White Wolf brand of combat. I go for the latter myself and really enjoy the descriptive moments in combat which, one could argue, is a stronger element of the abstract style games. Perhaps it's just my own brand of DMing, but I feel there's much more room for lively combat descriptions when I'm not confined by what a hit actually means.

Different strokes though, and you raise some very good points. Reasonable people can agree to disagree.

I really like the sound of the new title by Mearls. Link please??